Lesjongard Calls Out Government U-Turns on Juvenile Crime Law

Opposition MP Joe Lesjongard has sharply criticised the Mauritius government for what he calls a chaotic and amateurish handling of proposed changes to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, pointing to a sequence of contradictory decisions made within a 72-hour window.

The episode began on 14 October, when the Cabinet, the council of government ministers that sets national policy, announced it intended to lower the age at which a child can be prosecuted and sentenced from 14 to 12 years old. The move came in the wake of recent civil unrest in which several minors were reportedly involved.

Just two days later, on 16 October, the Cabinet reversed course. An official communique stated that the government had decided to pursue wider consultations instead, and would table a motion at the next sitting of the National Assembly to establish a Select Committee. That parliamentary body would be tasked with examining the root causes of juvenile delinquency and violence in Mauritius.

The communique was specific: the motion was to be presented at the very next parliamentary sitting, scheduled for the following Tuesday.

However, also on 16 October, the order paper for the National Assembly, the official document listing what will be debated in parliament, was published. According to Lesjongard, the motion referenced in the Cabinet communique was absent from it. In other words, the government had announced a parliamentary action on the same day that its own parliamentary schedule made no provision for it.

For Lesjongard, a member of the opposition in the National Assembly, this sequence tells a damaging story about the current executive. He argued that the government announced a policy, walked it back under pressure, promised a parliamentary process as an alternative, and then failed to follow through on even that commitment, all within three days.

His criticism centres not just on the substance of the juvenile crime debate, but on what he sees as a pattern of governmental dysfunction: decisions being made, unmade and then quietly abandoned without explanation or accountability.

What this means: The question of how Mauritius should respond to youth involvement in crime and public disorder is a serious one with long-term social and legal implications. A Select Committee, if established, would typically hear evidence from experts, civil society groups and government departments before recommending policy. The fact that the government floated, then retreated from, a significant legal change affecting children in the space of 48 hours raises legitimate questions about how policy decisions are being made, communicated and managed at the highest level of government.

Source: ION News